brickipediafandomcom-20200229-history
Forum:Admins! Stop!
A member of wikia's staff reminded me of something today. And so, the disrupt on the wiki ends here. You may think this is some sort of State of Emergency and then martial law. But I'm not. I'll give you an analogy, and a message and then we'll see what happens, mkay? Analogy I saw an episode of South Park yesterday, titled "The Wacky Molestation Adventure". (stick with me here) Cartman has four tickets to a concert and the boys all want to go. Kyle asks his parents for permission they forbid him from going. After negotiating with them, Kyle's mum sarcastically agrees that Kyle can go if he cleans out the garage, shovels all the snow from the driveway and brings democracy to Cuba, all of which Kyle manages to achieve. Despite his success, his parents still refuse to let him go. In his fury, he questions his parents' authority and angrily wishes that he had no parents at all. When Kyle shares his frustration with his friends, Cartman suggests that he call the police and tell them that his parents have been "molestering" him, which will make them go away (a trick he played on his mother's ex-boyfriend). After some practice to get the accusation right, Kyle makes the call and the police arrest his parents. Seeing how liberated they are without parents, all of the children begin calling the police on their parents and teachers resulting in the adults being taken to prison. Before long, only the children populate the town, The town falls into savagery and disrepair, and two sides form and they are basicly at war with each other. Two adults visit the town and after much confusion, manage to convince the children that they need their parents. Message 18:06:06 sannse: well... you are the admins :) except in very exceptional circumstances, it's your decision where the wiki goes and how it's run - maybe you need to put your foot(s) down and say "this is how it works here" - complete with bans if the disruption continues So, the message is that authority is needed and here, authority is getting lower and lower. So law shall be maintained and the wiki shall go back to a friendly place. There is a reason Brickipedians voted in administrators and so every thing they say should stop being scrutinised at every single angle and criticized, and people should just accept that admins have opinions too. We need stability, and I'm sure NHL would agree too. If not, you'll find have the community will fork and then this wiki will be in a worse situation then ever. cjc Comments For other notes: See Lord of the Flies. I fully agree. --Cligra 21:57, April 20, 2011 (UTC) Now then: to clarify. This has to do with Lego_lord. And others. I was on the IRC and Lego_lord's brother did not seem to know that it was him we were referring to. Um, what exactly is the problem here? 22:22, April 20, 2011 (UTC) None. Ask Lcawte. Good illustration, cjc. =) --...Orbis Non Sufficit... 22:33, April 20, 2011 (UTC) I find it disturbing how Wikia views admins as some sort of higher power over the community. FB100Z • talk • 23:29, April 20, 2011 (UTC) :Yeah, but currently, I'll ignore for the situation ;) -- Pandemonium is in bloom - cjc 23:36, April 20, 2011 (UTC) ::Even worse, they seem to encourage that kind of activity... FB100Z • talk • 23:51, April 20, 2011 (UTC) * Well said CJC and I fully agree with you. :) 21:05, April 21, 2011 (UTC) BST sannse: "For other notes: See Lord of the Flies." < quite :) I'm all for admins listening to their communities, of course, but the admins are there for a reason, to keep the wiki running smoothly :) --[[User:Lcawte|'Lewis Cawte']] (Talk - Contact) 23:03, April 21, 2011 (UTC) FB100Z: we encourage admins to be admins, and to ensure the smooth running of the wiki. And we give them as much leaway as possible in how they do that. Of course, as I said to Lcawte, it's good for admins to listen to their community, but if discussions and disputes are disrupting the wiki, then they have the right, the abilities, and the responsibility to deal with that. -- sannse http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb32675/wikia/images/e/e9/WikiaStaff.png (help forum | blog) 23:23, April 21, 2011 (UTC) :Wrong. :*Admins are not some form of government, they are a part of the community. It's not "good" for admins to listen to the other members of the community, it is required, as they are no better in any way than any other user. :*Admins do not have the right or the responsibility to "deal with that", unless of course the community requests that they do. They have the ability, yes, because they are trusted by the community to do its will - not their own. :*Admins do not keep the wiki running smoothly, the community does. This is a community run wiki, not a cabal run one. :Some people were confused over my wording, so I've re-organized it into this nice list. 23:40, April 21, 2011 (UTC) * I'm pretty sure staff would know a bit more than you when it comes to things like this Ajr... 23:51, April 21, 2011 (UTC) *:Considering her response, I'd say no. And how would they? Wikia Staff is a cabal of users with global rights who actually do run Wikia, since it is a company. This wiki is not a company, and Sannse is wrong. Most of what I know about adminship is from Wikimedia - the non-profit organization which first used wikis. I'm sure that they know what adminship should and should not be. 00:01, April 22, 2011 (UTC) *::Actually, there were some wikis before those in Wikimedia, but they are now considered merely a remnant of the early Internet. FB100Z • talk • 00:41, April 22, 2011 (UTC) :sannse: Admins don't own or lead the community; they're servants of it. They are merely ordinary users with some extra tools that help them in their work. Since the community relies on these tools to help keep the wiki running smoothly, the admins have to be bossed around a bit to do the things that the community wants. In other words, admins serve the community, not the other way round. FB100Z • talk • 00:41, April 22, 2011 (UTC) I understand that in most cases you are right BUT the fact is that a democracy will fail without the ability to make an "executive order". :Oh really? I'd say that that isn't really true, since you just blocked LL for six months. Democracy only fails when people don't exercise their rights, like you haven't by not proposing that LL be blocked before. 13:13, April 22, 2011 (UTC) ::If I had proposed it any earlier there would have been no hope as PID would have had all of his sockpuppets. :::Hence why my proposed system of consensus rather than straight vote works better... but also, if you suspected, we could have done a checkuser earlier... oh well, what's past is past. 19:41, April 22, 2011 (UTC) :::Also, on that note-why did you set up a vote? Isn't the standard method by blocking due to offenses without a vote... ::::I set up the vote.... - cjc 18:32, April 22, 2011 (UTC) :::::Oh, sorry. Aj, I hate to risk sounding like I'm trying to argue from authority, but I was highly involved in Wikipedia and Wikimedia from 2002 until I moved to Wikia, and have been fully immersed in wiki-life for the last 9 years. Two things are important: firstly, Wikimedia's model of administration is not the only valid way, there is plenty of room for other patterns. And secondly, even on Wikipedia there has always been a need for an authority that can deal with disruption as needed, even when that disruption is so problematic that the community can't come to a consensus about how to deal with it. Early on that was Larry Sanger as the "editor in chief", later it was Jimmy as founder, and later still it was the Arbitration Committee (a group I was part of). On Wikia that role is usually taken by the admins - although there is room for other models as I said. And, as part of that philosophy of Wikia not getting involved in local disputes (unless absolutely necessary) I'll back out of this conversation now :) -- sannse http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb32675/wikia/images/e/e9/WikiaStaff.png (help forum | blog) 17:25, April 22, 2011 (UTC) :Most of what I said was typed before our conversation, and I better understand what you meant now. Honestly, though, I think that Wikia has corrupted you a bit.. :P 19:41, April 22, 2011 (UTC) ::Well, companies like Wikia usually operate on hierarchical cabal systems. It's not like that's a bad thing; it's that it doesn't work on most wikis. FB100Z • talk • 01:37, April 23, 2011 (UTC)